Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35494278›Full record

ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2022

Magnetic Resonance Arthrogram Improves Visualization of Hip Capsular Defects in Patients Undergoing Previous Hip Arthroscopy.

Kelly M Tomasevich, Megan K Mills, Hailey Allen, Amanda M Crawford, Alexander J Mortensen, Angela P Presson, Chong Zhang, Stephen K Aoki

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kelly M TomasevichUniversity of Utah, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.
Megan K MillsUniversity of Utah, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.
Hailey AllenUniversity of Utah, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.
Amanda M CrawfordUniversity of Utah, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.
Alexander J MortensenUniversity of Utah, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.
Angela P PressonUniversity of Utah, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.
Chong ZhangUniversity of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.
Stephen K AokiUniversity of Utah, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.
University of Utah · US

Funding

Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR002538 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI HESS, RACHEL, MAJERSIK, JENNIFER JUHL · 2018 to 2022
$26.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002538
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) in the identification of hip capsular defects in patients who previously underwent hip arthroscopy. Methods: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for capsular insufficiency by a single surgeon between March 2014 and December 2019 were identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. Patients with arthroscopically confirmed capsular defects treated surgically who underwent both MRI and MRA between their primary and revision surgeries were identified. Imaging studies were blinded, randomized, and distributed to two fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists. Radiologists evaluated 14 components of different anatomic structures, including the presence of capsular defect and defect grading, over 2 months, with a 2-week washout period between 4 sets of reads to obtain 2 complete reads from each radiologist. Data were analyzed in R version 4.0.2. Results: Two hundred thirty patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy between March 2014 and December 2019. Twelve patients had both an MRI and an MRA of the operated hip performed between their primary and revision surgeries. Time between primary and revision hip arthroscopy was 2.0 ± 1.5 years (R: .3-6.3). Time between MRI and MRA was .6 ± .6 years (R: .0-1.6). Sensitivity for detecting hip capsular defects was significantly higher for MRA than for MRI (87.5%, 95% CI: [68,96] vs 50%, 95% CI: [31,69], respectively; Conclusions: This retrospective review demonstrates that MRA has higher sensitivity than MRI in detecting surgically confirmed capsular defects. MRA may be more helpful in identifying capsular defects in patients presenting with hip instability symptoms who have had a previous hip arthroscopy. Level of Evidence: Level IV, diagnostic case series.

Identifiers

PMID35494278
PMCPMC9042785
OpenAlexW4200123947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.